what does beat mean and by whos decree?
Notes taken shortly after the recent auditions:
Heard $5500/pr Japanese Esoteric MG-10 designed by British Tannoy, all magnesium cone/dome. Highly etched, wispy, hot top ½ octave, thin upper mid/lower treble. Coherent output sounded like a single-speaker, goes very deep, great bass power, great dynamics, apparently no audible distortion, amusical & not tolerable for any duration. Expectations were very high & I was anxious to hear these because Dick Olsher wrote the similarly designed floorstander was one of his favorites.
Next auditioned Dali's premium standmount $4k Helikon 7” 3-way. Musically far above the Esoteric, very inviting, fun, warmer sound, smooth FR but could apparently clearly hear the sound emanating from three separate sources, especially between the dome & ribbon; this was heard on the Garrison Keillor movie soundtrack & clearly confirmed on the Arturo Delmoni solo violin: the overtones were disconnected from the fundamentals & when going up through the range there appeared to be a clear line of demarcation between each of the three speakers. How/why this was not eliminated after careful listening at Dali is a complete mystery. Maybe it tested good but still, how could this be?
The audiophile salesman & I agreed on the Esoteric & Dali perceived audible characteristics. We agreed a cross between the two might be a desirable loudspeaker.
At the salesperson's request the ASA Pro Monitor was brought in to compare. For me, all the earlier Esoteric & Dali observations were confirmed. ASA did seem to have more audible distortion (estimated 4500cf favors speakers w/ higher-output capability) than either the Esoteric & Dali but ASA still preferred. ASA far more musical & confirmed the Dali's incoherency. ASA displayed a unique spectral & stage/image characteristic between the two CDs, eliminating a veil between the listener & the performance. Peculiar & interesting, only adding to enjoyment. None or little of this effect noticed w/ the Esoteric & Dali.
The ASA were not present during audition of the two speakers below. My room has similar dimensions though the store display had several unshorted unused speakers. Electronic components upstream appeared to be similar in quality or maybe below my own. IMO, the fact that the two speaker models below sounded quite different (no particular audio imprint common between them) indicates the room & associated components were of good quality & relatively nuetral.
$6500/pr Dynaudio Confidence C-1: Amusical, uninteresting & uninvolving. Smooth, coherent, dynamic, very low audible distortion (though I'd guess more than the Esoteric), linear apparent FR & bordered on pathologically boring. From the start I wanted to move on to something else; this feeling never diminished & only grew in intensity.
Next heard $5k/pr KEF Reference 3-way Uni-Q. A relief compared to the Dynaudio. Far more musical, fun & interesting, though suffered from lightweight bass & a glassy, watery effect (maybe associated w/ the lightweight bass). Salesman & I agreed the addition of a REL sub might make these a contender, but almost certainly inadequate bass for a standalone. You'd think a 3-way would allow for deeper/better bass than your typical 2-way but not the case here.
That's my story & I'm sticking to it!
